History:New Voting Proposal: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:50, 11 April 2006

This is my proposal of a new voting system, that hopefully would sort out some of the issues with the current one.

After 7 days, unseen edits will pass.
'Abstain' is as good as a 'Yes' vote, as undisputed edits will pass after 7 days.
There is no motivation to make accurate or complete edits. eg, new album additions are available to tag against straight away, so if a user isn't bothered about the site as a resource for others, they won't be bothered if their album is voted in anyway, as it's there's no concequence for them.
There is no concequence of not voting on others edits.

Edits will not pass until they achieve 3 yes votes (Q: what to do when there is a dispute?)
As before, edits with 3 no votes will fail.
Undisputed edits, or those with no votes at all, will not pass/fail, but remain in the system until the above is satisfied.

Users will be permitted a limited number of edits (Q: what should this start at?), which will increase as their number of passed edits increases (Q: what should be the formula?).

Reasoning: Since users will naturally want a larger edit queue than they have, it will be in their interest to make their edits correct, and well documented, so they get accepted sooner. Also, they may be motivated to vote on other user's edits, as this will decrease the queue, so their edits have more chance of being acted on. Also, someone who has built up a large edit limit for themselves, will have had a large number of edits accepted, so they will be proven to be a 'quality' submitter, and their increased quantity open of edits will take less time to go through the system.

The queue will increase, as everything needs to be voted on, and nothing will pass automatically (apart from what is currently deemed an 'automoderation' - I see no reason to change this behaviour.

Solution: Tweaking the number of permitted edits per user, and the way in which this number increases, should hopefully find a sweet spot.

Restricting users in this way is a bit negative, compared to our current 'anything goes' system. We don't want Musicbrainz to be a source of frustration!

Author: Gecks

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 </ul>
 * Users will be permitted a limited number of edits (Q: what should this start at?), which will increase as their number of passed edits increases (Q: what should be the formula?).
-<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">'''Reasoning:''' Since users will naturally want a larger edit queue than they have, it will be in their interest to make their edits correct, and well documented, so they get accepted sooner. Also, they may be motivated to vote on other user's edits, as this will decrease the queue, so their edits have more chance of being acted on.
+<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">'''Reasoning:''' Since users will naturally want a larger edit queue than they have, it will be in their interest to make their edits correct, and well documented, so they get accepted sooner. Also, they may be motivated to vote on other user's edits, as this will decrease the queue, so their edits have more chance of being acted on. Also, someone who has built up a large edit limit for themselves, will have had a large number of edits accepted, so they will be proven to be a 'quality' submitter, and their increased quantity open of edits will take less time to go through the system.
 </ul>